Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-25 Thread Tom Ritter
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Panos Astithas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tom Ritter wrote: > >> Device Memory clearly has made an effort to make it 'less fingerprintable' >> by only reporting possible values of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 - but there is >> nothing in the spec about

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-25 Thread Panos Astithas
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tom Ritter wrote: > Device Memory clearly has made an effort to make it 'less fingerprintable' > by only reporting possible values of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 - but there is > nothing in the spec about omitting it if desired to reduce fingerprinting. > This is a spec

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-23 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
Hi David, thanks for crafting this text. Would it make sense to also mention countermeasures in the paragraph on privacy? (For instance: disallowing use of this API for arbitrary origins or restricting access to specific API methods.) Given the significant privacy implications, I would lean

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-22 Thread L. David Baron
Below is an attempt to write comments on the charter to consider the feedback so far in this thread. It's not clear to me what the right charter changes to suggest for the privacy and fingerprinting issues are; I've made a proposal here, but I'm open to alternative suggestions. There's also the

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-16 Thread Panos Astithas
Thanks everybody for the comments submitted so far on the WG rechartering process, please keep them coming! I would like to make two requests, if I may: - feedback on specs and not on the recharter should be submitted to the GitHub issue tracker for the spec (ping me if you can't find it) - if

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-11 Thread Randell Jesup
>Adding to what Tom said... > >1. "Web developers want the ability to observe the performance >characteristics of their applications" - they want to do so, but >*should* they be allowed to do so? The API would give access to deep >performance data that could be used for all sorts of nefarious

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-11 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 7/10/18 10:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: The changes relative to the previous charter are: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2016%2F07%2Fwebperf=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2F07%2Fwebperf-charter It looks like the new charter proposes to merge navigation

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-11 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
Adding to what Tom said... 1. "Web developers want the ability to observe the performance characteristics of their applications" - they want to do so, but *should* they be allowed to do so? The API would give access to deep performance data that could be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2018-07-11 Thread Tom Ritter
I have a few concerns. The Long Task Specification is essentially a way for a website to know if you have other tabs open and if they are CPU intensive tasks. That seems in pretty fundamental opposition to the Same Origin Policy. Device Memory clearly has made an effort to make it 'less

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2016-06-06 Thread Jack Moffitt
Many of the proposed output specifications for this seem quite useful for the kinds of work we are doing in Servo. While this is aimed at web developers, it seems very useful for browser vendors to be measuring things the same way. Having standard ways of doing this means we'll be able to get more

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2015-06-16 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 6/12/15 3:08 PM, L. David Baron wrote: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/webperf-charter.html So I have two main comments on the way this working group is operating. Not sure how these can/should be reflected in the charter. 1) The deliverables and their interrelationships are a bit of a

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2015-06-13 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:08 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote: The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: Web Performance Working Group http://www.w3.org/2015/05/webperf-charter.html https://w3c.github.io/charter-webperf/

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2013-04-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:20 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote: W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Performance Working Group. For more details, see: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/webperf.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Mar/.html Mozilla has

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

2013-04-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:51 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote: So do you think our charter comments should push for merging the group into Web Apps? Or some of the deliverables (e.g., leaving the navigation timing and performance timing work?). (The group is currently standardizing